Whitewombat's world sounds restrictive and limited - just like ID.

boaz, generally agree about your point on the teaching of origins, evolution by natural selection makes no attempt to explain the origin of life itself, either scientifically or philosophically, this discussion of origins probably comes from most of evolutions opponents only reading the title.

I do however have to take issue with your assertion that without 'creation', by which I assume you mean an act or a purpose of 'god', we have “a barren dark, empty, meaningless, futile, valueless wasteland of secular humanism, existentialism, nihilism". I guess its a personal perspective, but I believe the complete opposite, the universe without the fatalistic need for a guiding hand (or a smiting fist, depending on where your up to in the books), full of potential and ever expanding horizons, and contrary to your opinion, full of values, morals and ethics, which are made all the more rich by their being our own, the product of ourselves as sentient individuals making use of our primary evolutionary advantage over every other animal on this planet (apart from thumbs), the ability to communicate and in return to emphasise, to see the value of human community both in a physical and altruistic sense.

my concerns with the teaching of id in schools is firstly that it is targeted at children at a critical time of their education and personal philosophical development, a 'soft target' compared to the more difficult task of actually having to engage in serious scientific discussion at a tertiary level.

secondly, and most importantly that the mindset of id and creationism that the answer to a complex problem is reducible to the actions of an unspecified entity, thereby effectively closing a line of enquiry into the nature and form of existence, runs contrary to every aspect of human character. We are at this stage of intellectual development because when faced with complexity, obstacles and the boundary of our own understanding we have pushed through, physically and intellectually.

The mindset of ID is the onset of stagnation, and contrary to the article, is no path to truth of any kind, including spiritual.

I.D. is the antithesis of the search for truth and knowledge, a fantastic and childish notion about things we may never understand. Where scientific enquiry gives one answer but raises two questions, our ignorance is immense.

Why this imperative for easy answers? I.D. rules a line beneath what is known and knowable, and says, "That's it. Beyond lies God"

This is interesting....

Its Not Easy..... responses like yours were not unexpected based on certain 'inflammatory' aspects to mine :) which of course is one reason why I make such.

I observe 3 themes emerging, one from yours and another from various (which you also observe)

1/ Some are trying to turn the issue into 'There is no God'
2/ others are saying, Children are soft targets.
3/ Others are suggesting that ID/Creation will stifle scientific enquiry.

To those arguing 1, please check out some more appropriate thread.

To those arguing 2, We also regard children as soft targets for the PHILOSOPHICAL speculation about origins which seems to be 'part of the package' with General Evolution.

To those suggesting 3, I have to disagree, because there are huge numbers of Christian scientists making such enquiries, and in them we see the wonder of the Almighty, not the denial of His existence. Its not too much to say it 'takes our breath away' at times.

For some such scientists, it all becomes tooooo much.. (no, they don't have nervous breakdowns) and they departs from full time science to bring glory to God as Pastors, church planters etc, which if I may speak from experience has to be the all time most wonderful persuit and incredible adventure in life bar none. (Texts not included, see Bible for details" :)

David Boaz, that there are scientists so overawed by the physical world that they seek meaning through the spiritual does not advance your argument. This debate boils down to whether or not ID should be taught alongside evolution - mysticism or empiricism? Supernatural or explainable? Physical evidence or guesswork? Reproducible experiment or dogma? Things even children could distinguish in the (science) classroom.

Science is a work in progress - we know why it rains, and perhaps one day we'll know more of why the observable world is as it is. In other words the gaps are getting smaller, as they have been since the 17th Century.

If I.D. is to be taught so should all other possibilities. Aboriginal dreamtime stories are equally valid, and much more intuitive. As previous writers have pointed out there are myriad possibilities alongside I.D. and to introduce just one suggests more than an altruistic desire for one's well-rounded education.

Well, that didn’t take long, did it? It was only a few weeks ago that we were subject to ID through its controversial backing by George Bush & co. It’s found it’s way into the Oz Catholic school system already – If it comes close to being introduced into the Oz public school system I’ll be surprised.
As per my comment in the last thread on this subject, ID has no place in the science classroom. It falls in the category of theoretical philosophy and should be promoted as such. I agree that the questions raised by the advocates of ID should be asked – these are the questions that drive humanity, the quest for the unknown. But ID is just that, a ‘question’, it is not a scientific hypothesis in any sense.
I would like to see it introduced into a new core school subject that covers the big questions. Who are we, What are we & where are we heading? without religious or scientific prejudice. It would be a step forward from the primitive public school curriculum that exists now.
For the record, my personal philosophy on this topic is that of the Humanist Movement. Try this-

http://www.kwhm.org/links/hmlinks.cgi